Don't know why they'd build them if there wasn't any need.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why doesn't North America have train sheds / pleasant platforms?
- Thread starter williamn
- Start date
Don't know why they'd build them if there wasn't any need.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,934
Amfleet coaches have that arrangement and they date from the mid 1970s. IIRC, folding the level plate upwards deploys the folding steps downwards.
The Acela high speed sets on the North East Corridor have high level boarding only, so can only serve stations with raised platforms. They've been in service since late in the year 2000.
Last edited:
The step-plate covers internal steps. This must have replicated an earlier design - i don't think Amtrak "heritage" coaches are limited to low platforms only. I think the US must have had a mixture of platform heights for rather a while.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Closely based on the Metroliner EMUs which are about ten years older, but I don't know if they had folding steps.
Superliners have the doors on the lower deck so aren't compatible with high platforms.
Caltrain's recent puchase of EMUs for San Francisco to San Jose has doors at both heights - not sure why they couldn't or didn't raise all the platforms instead, but perhaps because Amtrak also uses some of them?
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,934
The steps are folded upwards when the plate is down, which it has to be for the train to move. They only pivot down when the train is stopped, the door opened, and the level plate lifted up. Possibly they'd be out of gauge if the train moved when they were in the lowered position.
I don't know of any older designs using movable steps, though of course that doesn't mean there weren't any.
I don't believe Metroliners had movable steps, I think they were high level only. My recollection of metro area services in New York (subway, NJT, LIRR) is that everything was high floor, though it's a long while since I was on any of them so memory might be faulty.
We can all have our opinions, of course, but the LA architectural community has determined that Parkinson's design is so. Their own expression for such a variant is "Streamline Moderne" (pronounced 'Modern'), and Los Angeles has probably the largest group of such structures in the world, as ever because there were architectural practices there who as a group favoured it, along with clients (the city; the movie studios, etc) who liked it. The station headhouse to me has significant parts of California Spanish Revival style as well.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+Angeles,+CA,+USA/@34.0557634,-118.2370008,3a,75y,64.75h,107.27t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5kJG7zzr-ZzBo8P2F6OJKg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=-17.27413399444572&panoid=5kJG7zzr-ZzBo8P2F6OJKg&yaw=64.74549667265076!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x80c2c75ddc27da13:0xe22fdf6f254608f4!8m2!3d34.0549076!4d-118.242643!16s/m/030qb3t?entry=ttu
Streamline Moderne and Art Deco: A Tale of Two Styles | Keiser Design Group
Explore art deco and streamline moderne: uncover their history, key features, and lasting impact on design. Discover their unique styles.
keiserdesigngroup.com
I see what you mean. I thought you meant that the steps were entirely external. When deployed part of the steps are still inside the train under where the step-plate normally is.
Anyway VIA's Budd coaches (built in the 1950's) have a similar design - with movable steps - and I doubt that the idea of a step-plate started with them.
So going back to the original point, I think that trains in the US were able to cope with different platform heights long before the 1970s rather than any need for some stations to have low platforms forcing it on the entire network.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,934
I think that's probably right.
My assumption was that the north-east is mostly high level, and the rest of the country low level, but I'm not sure even that works. Looking back at my photos of the Strasburg (Pennsylvania) and Conway Scenic (New Hampshire) railways, both have heavyweight wooden cars with fixed steps, and low level platforms. The coaches might have originated elsewhere though. There are also stations south of Washington, served by North East Regional trains (Amfleet coaches), which have low level platforms. So maybe it's only urban areas in the north east which mostly have high level platforms.
High level platforms were long a feature of only the North East Corridor in cities, and everywhere else low level was, and pretty much still is, standard. Broadly speaking I recall inter-city streamlined cars (1950 onwards) having trapdoors, and traditional heavyweights (pre-WW2) only have the three integral steps, but that's just my own recollection. Accessibility legislation has caused changes, and the move to double-deck cars actually introduces its own complexity, including whether the gangway connections to the adjacent cars ("diaphragms" in US-speak) are at upper or lower level. Still there are variances between low level platforms just above rail height and true ground level boarding, from below ballast top level, which cause the traditional portable step and assisting car porter to carry on. Continuous welded rail and its deep ballasting has been a significant issue, installed of course by freight railroads for their own reasons.
There are still arguments back and forth on how to handle all this (especially between politicians and railroaders), lawsuits by accessibility activists against new passenger car orders, patented design solutions looking for a market, and all the rest.
Some of the most brilliant slapstick with traditional step-entrance doors is at the start of this old Laurel & Hardy film, shot in the old Santa Fe station in Los Angeles in 1929 before it was wrecked in the earthquake
There are still arguments back and forth on how to handle all this (especially between politicians and railroaders), lawsuits by accessibility activists against new passenger car orders, patented design solutions looking for a market, and all the rest.
Some of the most brilliant slapstick with traditional step-entrance doors is at the start of this old Laurel & Hardy film, shot in the old Santa Fe station in Los Angeles in 1929 before it was wrecked in the earthquake
Last edited:
ac6000cw
Established Member
One problem with high platforms is low-level clearances for freight vehicles on mixed-traffic lines, resulting in things like gauntlet tracks at stations to bring passenger trains closer to the platform edge.
LA Metrolink commuter rail is all low-platforms and double-deck cars, but for wheelchairs etc. there are set-back raised sections which align with specific doors on the trainsets, which were/are either fitted with user push-button operated bridging plates that fold out from inside the vestibule (old end-cars), or the conductor manually fits a bridging plate (current end-cars) e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...a.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original (the raised area is where the gap in the orange railings is).
LA Metrolink commuter rail is all low-platforms and double-deck cars, but for wheelchairs etc. there are set-back raised sections which align with specific doors on the trainsets, which were/are either fitted with user push-button operated bridging plates that fold out from inside the vestibule (old end-cars), or the conductor manually fits a bridging plate (current end-cars) e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...a.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original (the raised area is where the gap in the orange railings is).
Last edited:
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,934
Amtrak has decided that the Superliners will be replaced by single level stock, with accessibility requirements being one of the contributory factors. At present they are (or will soon be) soliciting tenders from potential suppliers, and assuming that they can find a builder who can meet the specification, the new fleet will be introduced in the early 2030s.
Until recently, the only station in Canada with high platforms was Montreal Central. All cars had steps and a "trap" which covered them when the door was closed. When opening the door, you had the option to flip up the spring loaded trap or not, depending on platform height.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,228
Won't that be a significant drop in capacity?
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,934
It would seem so, yes. Though I don't know how much scope there may be to make that up with longer trains. Amtrak routinely stops twice at stations where platforms are too short for both sleeper and coach (seated) cars to be alongside the platform simultaneously, so running longer trains wouldn't necessarily need platforms to be extended.
They're a long way from having proposed layouts though, so decisions like that are still some way away.
The Renaissance stock doesn't work like that, having been built for European services. But that's OK as there's enough space outside the coach for the steps to fold out as the coaches are somewhat narrower than normal North American stock.
Of course it does leave a bit of a gap at high platforms but they have little "ramps" they can put over that.
Returning to the original topic, I was just posting pics from my trip online and these neatly illustrate my point.
I find it hard to imagine that the platforms were this dismal originally when so much money was evidently spent on the rest of Washington DC’s Union station.
I find it hard to imagine that the platforms were this dismal originally when so much money was evidently spent on the rest of Washington DC’s Union station.
As explained above already, why would they spend money on the platform area? In North American practice, generally passengers wait in the nice part of the station and only start boarding when the train has arrived. The platform is functionally the same as a corridor, as an airbridge at the airport - a 'platform' from which you board or alight the train. Passengers only spend time transiting the platform. Our closest railway example is probably Euston.
Western Lord
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 1,058
Not really. Superliners don't carry many passengers on the lower deck (only around a dozen I believe) and you are removing the need for a staircase, so more of the length of the carriage is available for seating.
Last edited:
Yes - not much downstairs in a seating coach - it's just a handful of seats (which mostly just compensate for the seats missing upstairs where the stairs are - and some don't even have the downstairs seats), the stairs and a rather large collection of toilets which of course would need to be somewhere in a single level coach.
I suspect that any new stock will be somewhat less generously provided for with toilets though.
The sleepers seem to do a bit better, e.g. with 14 "Roomettes", 5 bedrooms (both types accommodate two passengers), an accessible bedroom and a family bedroom, the latter two are downstairs along with 4 roomettes. Everything else is upstairs.
So a fair bit of space used downstairs but going double decker certainly gets nowhere near doubling the capacity.
In any case I imagine that any replacement will have more closely spaced seats. The legroom in current long distance stock is incredibly generous.
It will be a shame to see the Superliners go though. I always liked the look of the family bedroom - having a private compartment with a view from both sides of the train is rather impressive.
You may well be right but...the waiting area in DC is definitely not in the nice bit! It's just the deep contrast that seems odd to me. Even an airbridge is well kept, its not exposed concrete, puddles and so on.
Indeed. Yes, there's a different philosophy where platforms are often considered something much more distinct from the station building than is usual in Europe and you're not expected to hang around on them for long. But still.....there's a difference between being basic and just downright grotty.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Perhaps more comparable with walking across the tarmac to the steps in places where there isn't an airbridge.
ac6000cw
Established Member
Note that when Washington Union station was opened in 1908, the platforms were largely in the open, with individual canopies (and a nice array of power semaphores!) - the concourse building runs across the back of the picture:
...then decades later a car park and road bridge was built over about half of them (a view from 2022). Some of the tracks on the left (east) side descend into a tunnel to continue southwest into Virginia:
(Photos from Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Union_Station )
...then decades later a car park and road bridge was built over about half of them (a view from 2022). Some of the tracks on the left (east) side descend into a tunnel to continue southwest into Virginia:
(Photos from Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Union_Station )
Last edited:
Yes - I think a large part of the problem is building over stations and thus converting bare but not particularly unpleasant exposed platforms into something subterranean that is a lot less nice (particularly if you breathe air).
ac6000cw
Established Member
I agree.
Being a bit fair, both GCT and Penn Station in New York were designed from the outset to be electric traction only, and the PRR route (today's NEC) into Washington Union was electrified in the 1930s. AFAIK, at all-diesel Chicago Union they try to keep locos at the 'country end' - using commuter/regional push-pull trains or propelling arriving long-distance trains back into the platforms.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,228
I would assume that on long distance services, the sleeping accommodation is the core of the business, rather than seated passengers. The observation car is upstairs too.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,934
Amtrak's tender document for the single level stock apparently runs to 2,673 pages. Trains magazine* has a summary in the current issue which includes these comments:
- Standard coaches will seat 60 people
- Optional high density coaches will seat 66
- Premium accessible coaches will seat 33 (2+1 layout)
- Seat pitch 42" standard, 48" premium
- Standard sleeper will have 7 roomettes, 12 solo suites, 1 crew roomette, 2 toilets and a shower
- Accessible sleeper will have 2 accessible bedrooms, 4 club bedrooms, and 1 crew roomette, all with bath and shower
- Catering cars include cafe cars seating 36, dining cars with kitchen and 18 seats, and combined diner/lounges served from an adjacent dining car
Whether the final fleet will match any of this, or will happen at all, is another question. Multiple builders have come to (financial) grief building stock for Amtrak, and it's unclear how many will be tempted even for an order of up to 800 vehicles. In the past Amtrak has bought smaller fleets than initially proposed, leaving builders with development costs uncovered when the numbers were cut.
*(From a paper copy so no link)
The Pelican
Member
Washington Union station is interesting as it has both the Northeast Corridor, which resembles a busy train line in Europe, with an all day frequent service, and the Virginia Rail Express, which is a US style commuter rail operation, with services only operating during peak hours. In the VRE's case, this uses the most distinctively American piece of passenger rolling stock, the Gallery car, which has the upper deck built with an air gap in the middle and passenger seating on either side, like in some pubs or theatres. The Victoria in Oxford has a gallery in a reasonably small pub building. The railway version allows a guard to only walk along a single floor of the train. Photos appear to suggest that, even with the generous US loading gauge, the seating is the aisle, then one column of seats, then the gallery, then another column of seats, then another aisle - it doesn't look like they could fit aisle-2 seats-gallery-2 seats-aisle. I found the photos at http://www.stevedunham.50megs.com/photos/VRE.html
As far as I know, this kind of double decker car is unique to North America.
As far as I know, this kind of double decker car is unique to North America.
Also some long distance trains passing through as well as MARC which operates local services into Maryland with a somewhat more European-like level of service than VRE.
It has a mix of high and low level platforms. I believe that some of the trains it serves can only use high level platforms and I think it used to be the case that some trains could only use the low level platforms though that may no longer be true.
ac6000cw
Established Member
I've ridden in the VRE cars (and, a long time ago, the similar Chicago area Metra cars) - IIRC, they have 2+wide aisle+2 seating on the lower level, with (as you said) 1+narrow aisle+gap+narrow aisle+1 seating on the upper level. It basically creates (in passenger capacity terms) a roughly 'one and a half times' car that will fit within traditional northeast USA height clearances.
The height issue is why you don't get Amtrak Superliners running north of DC - they are too tall to fit on some routes. They can run into Washington Union from the west over the CSX (ex-B&O) route via Cumberland, MD, as they were used on the Chicago - Washington DC 'Capitol Limited' service for many years.